DETAILED ACTION
Arguments filed on 8/11/2026 have been entered. Claims 2, 8-12, 17, 20, 24, 26, 29-31, 33 cancelled. Claims 23, 25, 27 withdrawn.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-7, 13-16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 28, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nardin (US 2015/0276327 A1), in view of Ishii (US 2014/0060794 A1), and in view of Phillips (US 2020/0132393 A1).
Claim 1: Nardin discloses an energy storage apparatus (i.e., FIG.2) comprising:
a crucible (i.e., container 6 used as crucible) having a cavity and a channel (i.e., channel/pipe 9) having at least two open ends within the body of the crucible (i.e., 6);
a phase change material (i.e., 7 PCM) stored in the cavity of the crucible (i.e., 6); and
a heat exchanger (i.e., exchanger 8; paragraph [128]: heat exchange module 5 consists of a heat exchanger known as internal exchanger 8) having an inlet and an outlet (i.e., inherent), wherein at least a portion (i.e., inherent) of the heat exchanger (i.e., 8) is encased within the channel (i.e., 9).
Nardin discloses the claimed limitations in claim 1, but fails to disclose a graphite crucible; the heat exchanger is not in contact with the phase change material.
However, Ishii teaches the heat exchanger (i.e., 15) is not in contact with the phase change material (i.e., storage tank 20 contains phase change material 25) for the purpose of determining whether the phase of the whole phase change material is completely changed from the solid phase to the liquid phase that is whether the phase change material is allowed to be supercooled (paragraph [3]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Nardin to include the heat exchanger is not in contact with the phase change material as taught by Ishii in order to determine whether the phase of the whole phase change material is completely changed from the solid phase to the liquid phase that is whether the phase change material is allowed to be supercooled.
Further, Phillips teaches a graphite crucible (paragraph [79]: between casing 110 and crucible 120 filled with graphite as a solid block of the energy storage) for the purpose of achieving high thermal conductivity by providing an excellent medium (paragraph [78]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Nardin to include a graphite crucible as taught by Phillips in order to achieve high thermal conductivity by providing an excellent medium.
Claim 3: Nardin as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, comprising a plurality of graphite crucibles (Phillips, between casing 110 and crucible 120 filled with graphite) (further, Phillips teaches graphite crucible, except for a plurality of graphite crucibles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Phillips to include a plurality of graphite crucibles in order to enhance to a higher thermal conductivity, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a known device involves only routine skill in the art Duplication of parts: MPEP 2144.04 VI-B).
Claim 4: Nardin as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the graphite crucible (Phillips, between casing 110 and crucible 120 filled with graphite) comprises an open cavity (Phillips, see FIG.1).
Claim 5: Nardin as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the graphite crucible (Phillips, between casing 110 and crucible 120 filled with graphite) comprises a closed cavity (Phillips, see FIG.1).
Claim 6: Nardin as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the graphite crucible (Phillips, between casing 110 and crucible 120 filled with graphite) comprises a plurality of cavities (Phillips, see FIG.1).
Claim 7: Nardin as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the graphite crucible (Phillips, between casing 110 and crucible 120 filled with graphite) comprises one or more channels (Phillips, multiple conduits 140) along an outer surface (i.e., inherent) of the graphite crucible body, wherein a portion (i.e., inherent) of the heat exchanger (8) is disposed along at least one of the one or more channels (9).
Claim 10: Nardin as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the material of the crucible (i.e., 6) is selected from the group consisting of silicon carbide, graphite, reinforced polymer, clay, porcelain, ceramics, carbon nanotubes, aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide, boron nitride, silicon nitride, steel, copper, mullite, zirconium oxide, ductile iron, cast iron, stainless steel, brass, alloys of columbian, tantalum, molybdenum, tungsten and combinations thereof (i.e., paragraph [134]: aluminum alloy).
Claim 13: Nardin as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the energy storage apparatus stores energy (i.e., FIG.2) using a heating element (i.e., heat module 5 used as heating element).
Claim 14: Nardin as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 13, wherein the heating element (i.e., heat module 5) is selected from the group consisting of a heliostat, a furnace, an electrical resistor, a heat transfer fluid and combinations thereof (i.e., heat-carrying fluid 10).
Claim 15: Nardin as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 13, wherein the heating element (i.e., heat module 5) is internal to the energy storage apparatus (i.e., FIG.2).
Claim 16: Nardin as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 13, wherein the energy storage apparatus comprises a plurality of heating elements (i.e., multiple heat modules 5 FIG.3).
Claim 18: Nardin as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the energy storage apparatus comprises a plurality of heat exchangers (i.e., paragraph [140] & [154]: PCM inserted with other transfer materials with corresponding internal heat exchangers SI, regulating designing heat exchangers).
Claim 19: Nardin as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 18, wherein each heat exchanger (i.e., 8) is a separate independent circuit (i.e., separate circuits of FIG.3-4 and other related figures).
Claim 21: Nardin as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the phase change material is a metal (i.e., paragraph [27]: PCM such as copper) or a metal alloy.
Claim 22: Nardin as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 21, wherein the phase change material is aluminum (i.e., paragraph [159]: aluminum as the PCM), or an alloy comprising aluminum.
Claim 28: Nardin as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1 an energy storage array comprising: a plurality of energy storage apparatus in thermal (i.e., FIG.3 illustrates multiple heat modules storage apparatus) and/or electrical communication .
Claim 32: Nardin as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 28, wherein the array is arranged in series or parallel (i.e., FIG.3 illustrates parallel array of heat modules 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument on page 2: “Yet further, it is clear from the disclosure of Phillips that the crucible (120) does not disclose a heat exchanger channel having at least two open ends within the body of the crucible and wherein at least a portion of the heat exchanger is encased within the channel of the crucible, as required by independent claim 1”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees; Phillips is only used to teach a graphite crucible which Nardin lacks.
Applicant’s argument on page 3: “Phillips does not disclose, teach, suggest, or make obvious encasing a portion of the heat exchanger within the heat exchanger channel of the crucible of the energy storage apparatus, as required in the present invention”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees; As indicated above Phillips is only used to teach a graphite crucible which Nardin lacks.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI whose telephone number is (313)446-6612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Len Tran can be reached on (571) 272-1184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights